. Her action was deemed failure to perform duty with responsibility, due care, and loyalty for the best interest of the company, which was a violation of Section 89/7 of the SEA. This case is under
authorized director, causing the company to suffer losses. His action was deemed failure to perform duty with responsibility, due care, and loyalty for the best interest of the company, which was a violation
(Baht 2,212 million) which was charged from the contract party, resulting in substantial rise in net profit of Q1/2010 at Baht 1,788.1 million which rose by 193.47% from the same period of 2009. Mr
(Baht 2,212 million) which was charged from the contract party, resulting in substantial rise in net profit of Q1/2010 at Baht 1,788.1 million which rose by 193.47% from the same period of 2009. Mr
million) which was charged from the contract party, resulting in substantial rise in net profit of Q1/2010 at Baht 1,788.1 million which rose by 193.47% from the same period of 2009. Mr. Choavalit as a
(6) Mr. Tanyapisist Saprod and (7) Miss Metta Poking jointly failed to perform their duties with responsibility, due care, and loyalty or failed to perform their duties with dishonest intent and
jointly failed to perform their duties with responsibility, due care, and loyalty or failed to perform their duties with dishonest intent and obtained unlawful gains for themselves or another person which
jointly failed to perform their duties with responsibility, due care, and loyalty or failed to perform their duties with dishonest intent and obtained unlawful gains for themselves or another person which
jointly failed to perform their duties with responsibility, due care, and loyalty or failed to perform their duties with dishonest intent and obtained unlawful gains for themselves or another person which
jointly failed to perform their duties with responsibility, due care, and loyalty or failed to perform their duties with dishonest intent and obtained unlawful gains for themselves or another person which